Scientific method (was Re: Fusion In Utah (again))

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:




Unfortunately it is similar to the wrong message being wrapped
in rap. Read it again and we see the message at the core is
wrongheaded despite the "fun trappings." Simply stated, the
scientific method does NOT provide a shield against making
insupportable claims. That happens here, and in many other
places, every day. The problem with the statement isn't simply
about careless wording. There is even some opposition to the
idea that there is an identifiable process that can be called
by the name. And there's another movement calling for a double
blind study of the effectiveness of "the scientific method."

What does the scientific method actually provide?

"The scientific method is the process by which scientists,
collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an
accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary)
representation of the

world."http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

"The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for
winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple
version looks something like this: ...."

[Only registered users see links. ]

"The scientific method, then, is founded upon direct observation
of the world around us. A scientist looks critically and attempts
to avoid all sources of bias in this observation. But more than
looking, a scientist measures to quantify the observations; this
helps in avoiding bias. "

There's no real consensus. So it is, gasp!, a philosophy, not a specific
method or procedure at all. And here's a discussion about scientific
method and measuring that Al obviously missed out on:

[Only registered users see links. ]

Insupportable claims? Here's one we've been hearing for a while:

"An Equivalence Principle violation >520 times that allowed
for opposed composition test masses is predicted."

More to the point, does peer review participate in the process
called the scientific method, and if so how? Is there any
description that requires peer review as part of the system
framing the process from initial thought to acceptance as
"scientific fact?"

Creating a cute parallel as Schwartz did gets attention, but in
the real world of science it is not only misleading, but is completely
vacant as well. I'm all for bringing fun comparisons into science
which is, after all, a human endeavor, but without the core values
being accurately worthy of attention one is reading nothing more
than a clown making believe he's a scientist. I'm sick and tired
of it.

"Bill Vajk" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:saPab.521663$YN5.346811@sccrnsc01...
news:<[Only registered users see links. ].net>...
[Only registered users see links. ]
0000000000

Actually Fleischman and Pons rushed to publish their work
because they had requested a grant from the Federal Government
to provide funding, and when the government inspectors visited them,
they insisted that Fleischman and Pons let another researcher
(Steven Jones of Brigham Young University.)
who was doing research in cold fusion supervise the project.

They suspected that the government inspector and Steven Jones
might co-opt the credit for their possible earth shattering discovery,
so they quickly made their initial, unconfirmed findings public.

I am sure that they would have preferred
to follow normal procedures,
but I dare say that 99.44% of the people
would do what they did under the circumstances.

What would you do,
if you thought that you had the key to the most
important invention of all time,
and some government employee was trying to force you to be silent
(So the government could keep it secret and control it if it worked.)
and join forces with another man in charge?

--
Tom Potter [Only registered users see links. ]

"Bill Vajk" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:saPab.521663$YN5.346811@sccrnsc01...

Well, I agree with you completely that it is more a philosophy than a
specific set of steps. But you say this as if you've just said something
profound. Maybe it could have been called "the scientific philosophy", but
then "big bang" isn't a very good name either. Live with the fact that
English is an imprecise language, usually used imprecisely.

"Dennis Taylor" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:eh2bb.995762$[Only registered users see links. ]. ca...

All of science has its basis in philosophy.... Philosophical
argument followed by experiment to validate a philosophical
concept that leads to repeatable, verifiable evidence is then
converted into models and rules of the once only philosophical
concept... now converted into dogma....

Bill Vajk <bill9north@hotmail.DITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message news:<saPab.521663$YN5.346811@sccrnsc01>...



Yes you are truely in the common class of thinker. Sir Popper
defined the scientist as the user of the science and also as
the abstract maker of the science.

Meaning somebody is supposed to somehow be granted the challenge
of getting all the science correct

And you need to ask Sir Popper who does that.

"> I am sure that they would have preferred


They should have repeated their initial experiments with regular water
instead of D2O before making any outrageous statement. (It turns out
that the results with H2O are practicaly the same, so the fusion is
not the source of the effects)

It is not the first scientific career destroyed by wishful thinking.
It goes with the high ambition.

Douglas Eagleson wrote:

SNIP...

Without denegrating Karl Popper as a philosopher,
you find that his ideas about how science is done
are not idempotent with how science is done, and
certainly is not accepted by most current historians/
philosophers of science.

It's a lot like most folk thinking that the description of
Quantum Mechanics stoptted with Bohr or Schroedinger.

josh halpern

In many ways that dis

Douglas Eagleson wrote:

snip


Would it were so.

[Only registered users see links. ] (Muhammar) wrote in message news:<a6cffac9.0309201339.31678213@posting.google. com>...

I think it was Feinmann who said "It's easy to fool people, and the
easiest person to fool is yourself."

John

Dear M,
Steven Jones was doing work on meson based cold fusion ( The alverez approach)
and it was quite promising. He left that to try to muscle in on the Pons and
Fleischman trash.
best
penny

The most promising technology for Table top fusion ( hot fusion) was also
invented by a man from Utah-- philo Farnsworth's
Fusor. Do a websearch.
( If the name rings a bell--he was also the inventor of electronic tv.)